GaryP

How old is the oldest known fragment of manuscript that later became a part of the Bible?

Gamera

Are you refering to the P52 papyrus, the Ryland fragment, which is traditionally dated to the first half of the second century on paleographic grounds. It contains John 18:31-33 and 37-38.

However I believe some issue exists as to whether P64 and P67 may be older.

Chris Weimer

How about the Dead Sea Scrolls?

GaryP

I don't know what I was referring to ... I am clueless on this subject but I posted this on a local paper's discussion site:

My position seems perfectly clear to me .. Yours is shrouded in ancient history, written by who know whom, for what purpose, revised who knows how often, and the original manuscripts don't exist!!

A fellow poster countered with this:

There are parts of original manuscripts (MSS) for the NT that have been found. The copies that have been found meet all the same criteria for authentification that writings from Caesar, Thucydides, Aristotle, Homer and others. And actually, there are more MSS closer to the time of the original for the NT then there are for any of these. (I cannot say about the OT because I have not studied that.)

The first is called the Bibliographic Test. This test answers the question: while not having the original documents, how reliable are the copies we have in regard to the number of MSS and the time interval between the original and copy? So let's stack them up beside each other.

Thucydides (who was the famous Greek historian - 460-400b.c.) has just 8 MSS dated about 900a.d. - approx. 1,300 years after his original.

Aristotle wrote his poetics around 343 b.c. with just 5 MSS dated 1100 a.d. - approx. 1,400 years after his original.

Caesar's Gallic Wars was between 58-50b.c. and has 9 or 10 MSS dating 1,000 years after his death.

The New Testament - after the early papyri MSS discoveries that bridged the gap between the times of Christ and the second century, an abundance of MSS came to light. There are 20,000 MSS dating between 50 and 75 a.d. The second closest to the NT is Homer's Iliad with 643 MSS. So the question could easily be turned around - why should we believe that what Caesar, Thucydides, Aristotle or even Homer wrote? Who are these men? Why did they write their MSS? How many times were they revised - and for what purpose?

Sir William Ramsey, regarded as one of the greatest archaeologist to have ever lived, became convinced that the Book of Acts was not a trustworthy account of the facts of that time (circa 50 a.d.). So when he researched the history of Asia Minor, he didn't pay much attention to it. BUT - His investigation eventually compelled him to consider the writings of Luke. He observed the meticulous accuracy of the historical details, and gradually changed his attitude toward the Book of Acts to the point that he was forced to conclude: "Luke is a historian of the first rank . . . this author should be placed along with the very greatest of historians." (The Bearing of Recent Discovery on the Trustworthiness of the New Testament, Ramsay, p. 222)

As for the NT being "oral tradition." The criteria for the NT stories to be just tradition does not fit the NT. There was not enough time between the events and the writings for "oral tradition" or folklore to have taken place. The criteria is generations (plural) not less than 100 years.

There are two other tests that are placed on literature to determine their reliability and authenticity which the NT passes with flying colors. Would you like me to go through those two also?

Given the "facts" - the NT has more evidence for reliability than for a lot of classical literature - yet we never question it. I wonder why? Could it be because the NT tells us about Jesus and we (mankind) don't want to acknowledge that?

Does this guy know what he is talking about?

Gamera

(For no apparent reason) I thought he meant NT, which looking at the post below maybe he did.

Chris Weimer

"The New Testament - after the early papyri MSS discoveries that bridged the gap between the times of Christ and the second century, an abundance of MSS came to light. There are 20,000 MSS dating between 50 and 75 a.d."

This isn't true. We don't have any manuscripts that early. As for the trustworthiness of Acts, HeretiKc here has my book that I want to investigate more deeply on Acts and Roman procedure.

Chris Weimer

Apparently, he did.

Gamera

I think the interlocutor is suffering from some concept creep here based on sloppy sourcing. There may indeed be thousands of paparus mss from this period (though 20,000 sounds excessive), but none of them are mss of NT texts, that's for sure. I wish.

Toto

Some of this seems to be summarized from Gary Burger The Bible: a Relic or Reliable Revelation?. I think this site invented the term "Bibliographic Test" which I have never heard of, and which seems designed to validate the Bible.

This statement is clearly wrong: "There are parts of original manuscripts (MSS) for the NT that have been found."

Apologists love to compare the Bible to other manuscripts and claim an advantage for the Bible. But no one today holds Homer or Plato as sacred, and there is somewhat less of a motive to rewrite them. His statement that no one questions the authenticity of other ancient documents is not true. Besides - merely showing that a manuscript is ancient does not mean that it is true or divinely inspired.

The part about William Ramsay is the usual apologetic claim that he started out a skeptic but was overwhelmed by what he found. Acts has many accurate historical details. But it also has some errors and improbabilities. Those details don't allow anyone to distinguish between history and historical fiction.

The remarks about "oral tradition" are a garbled form of the apologetic argument that there was insufficient time between the events and the written copies for legendary development. I don't think that this writer understand what the argument is about.

Iasion

We have a huge number of copies of the Book of Mormon, starting from shortly after it was written - far more than the NT, from a much shorter time.

Therefore, according to your argument, the Book of Mormon is reliable and true.


We have millions of copies of books about Luke Skywalker, from very shortly after they were written.

Therefore, according to your argument, Luke Skywalker is real.


We have original copies (carved in stone a long time before the NT) of Egyptian myths of Osiris.

Therefore, according to your argument, the myths of Osiris are real.


In fact -
this argument is nonsense.

The number of copies of a book, or it's closeness to the time of writing, has NOTHING to do with the truth of the contents.


Iasion