judge

An interesting question would be how did the same texts end up being used outside the Empire in Persia by groups who had no affiliation with either the Empire or Churches within the Empire

gregor2

CX

Are you working on a century by century breakdown of the extant words or versus? It would be tremendous to have a resource along these lines:

The NT has X,XXX verses and roughly YY,YYY words of text.

1. From texts dated 33 CE to 99 CE we have 0 verses and a total 0 words of text.

2. From texts dated 100 CE to 199 CE we have 4 complete verses and 3 partial verses and a total ___ words of text.

3. From texts dated 200 CE to 299 CE we have ___ complete verses, ___ partial verses, and a total ___ words of text

4. From texts dated 300 CE to 399 CE & etc.

Obviously, this has some limitations, as the later you go the varying language in texts begin to appear.

Epictetus

Chief, why do you hold in contempt biblical scholars and their views on the formation of the canon, textual criticism, etc. but you swallow "hook, line and sinker" the apologetic mumblings of people like F.F. Bruce and Josh MacDowell? Actually, it is an oxymoron on my part to refer to MacDowell as a scholar. He is a Dallas Theological Seminary party hack. This stuff you refer to comes right out of his book and is smoke and mirrors to the real issues at hand.

You should examine your own belief system and the presuppositions you are making prior to coming to a forum and spitting up pablum that is generally regarded by most in here as apologetic baby food, fit only for those who don't use their gray matter. I suspect that you didn't post your question as an honest attempt to gain a greater understanding of the formation of the canon, but rather to espouse your view that "the original autographs are inerrant." Most of the people in here have heard all of this ad nauseum and they rightfully disregard it.

[remarks deleted-V] The NT canon (and Old for that matter) is probably one of the areas where serious consideration of the evidence would lead you to the stark conclusion that a belief in inerrancy is ridiculous, uncritical, unscientific and doctrinaire.

But hey...people have all kinds of wacky beliefs.

CX

Yes. That is precisely my intent. I am currently limiting myself to papyrus MSS in Greek ignoring for the moment any early versions, lectionaries or patristic citations. Perhaps after I complete that daunting task I will set to work on other early references in the first 3 centuries.

CX

I agree that is a very interesting question, however that is outside the scope of what I'm proposing. I have only limited knowledge of the arguments of the western text supremicists. Perhaps that might be a project for you to undertake given your knowledge of the subject. (Unless, of course, you were simply bating those present for a fight over western versus alexandrian text supremacy).

blt to go

In reviewing Amlodhi's list, a nagging question presented itself, and I am hoping one of you can give me a short answer. I am sure I am missing something.

I often see the "dating" or "ordering" of the gospels being Mark, Matthew & Luke (copying from Mark) and then John. I understand the rationale behind this order.

However, the earliest MSS seem to be from the last book, GJohn? And we have a variety of MSS from GJohn and GMatthew, but is there only one MSS with GMark prior to the turn of the 3rd Cenutry?

I would think the first books written would have the most copies (and we presume at Least AMatthew and ALuke each had a copy of GMark) so it would appear that in a "sampling" of MSS we would expect more of GMark, a little less of GMatthew and GLuke, and even less of GJohn, right?

So why the exact opposite?

Perhaps this is pure speculation and we can't know, perhaps all of the MSS came from AJohn's grandkid's locker, is there a solution?

Thanks.

DramaQ

The movie "It's a Wonderful Life" is based (loosely) on a short story called "The Greatest Gift".

A lot of people know the movie story but have never even heard of the short story (let alone have a copy of it – although I do. )

One way of looking at it might be that, to many, Matthew, Luke, and John all did better jobs of telling Mark’s story. So they became more popular and more reproduced.

Anyway, that’s one explanation I can think of.

Cheers,

DQ

chapka

Just guessing, of course, no real expertise in this subject. But I think it's plausible that two texts dealing with the same subject might be treated very differently based on their character as texts--that is, how they tell their story, what vocabulary they use, and so on. Remember, first- and second-century scribes had many "gospels" to choose from; it's possible the Gospel of John was just more popular than the others, and therefore there were more copies available; or that John's more "literary" quality made it more likely to survive--people, at least today, tend to treat "literary" texts differently--consider the last time you threw a book in the trash vs. the last time you threw out a magazine.

Or, of course, it could be chance.

Follow-up question: do any of the textual experts here know if there are any non-canonical New Testament writings that we have earlier copies of than the canonical stuff?

andrewcriddle

The Egerton papyrus (P Egerton 2), which appears to be the remains of a non-canonical gospel probably based on the canonical gospels but possibly independent, used to be dated to around CE 150 but the recent discovery of another fragment from the same manuscript has led to its redating maybe as late as 200 CE.

P Oxy 1 (a fragmentary Greek copy of the Gospel of Thomas) is usually dated 200 CE (Of the other Greek fragments of Thomas P Oxy 655 is of similar date or a bit later, while P Oxy 654 is definitely 3rd century)

Andrew Criddle

Peter Kirby

Where can I find out about this new fragment of the Egerton?

best,
Peter Kirby