seekthetruth

I wonder if someone could tell me exactly how biblical manuscripts are dated? For instance, how do we know that a manuscript that was many theists say was written in 130 AD was actually written in 130 AD?

I would also be interested if someone knows the earliest complete manuscript of the bible, and the earliest fragment.

Diogenes the Cynic

IANA textual critic but I do know that paleography is one of the methods used for dating manuscripts. Paleography is the study of the writing style -- that is, the physical representation of the script and individual letters -- which changes over time. Particular styles can be reliably dated within known periods. It's kind of like pottery is to archaeologists.

The oldest manuscripts for books of the Hebrew Bible are those in the Dead Sea Scrolls. The oldest complete Bibles are the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus codices from the 4th Century.

Malachi151

Another methods is by references in other works that we can better date. For example if someone wrote a piece that is dated or can be dated to 130 and in that piece they say "In the gospel of Matthew is says, 'blah, blah, blah'", and that quote is in our current version of Matthew, then we say that Matthew, at least this part of it, was written by at least 130, and probably at least 10 years prior to account for the dispersion of the text, etc.

hatsoff

A lot of methods are employed, but usually paleography is chief among them. And, as you can imagine, paleography is not very precise. So whenever you hear of a text dated to, say, c.300 AD, it is probably more accurate to say c.200-400 AD.

Ben C Smith

People who date manuscripts are called text critics and paleographers, not theists, though many of them may well be theists.

The earliest complete NT manuscripts are, as Diogenes said, Vaticanus and Sinaiticus. The earliest NT fragment is the Rylands papyrus, P52, dated to century II, though some of the Dead Sea scrolls have been controversially (and IMHO incorrectly) claimed for the NT. The Dead Sea scrolls provide fragments and individual books of the OT. The oldest complete OT in Hebrew is the Leningrad codex, dated to century IX.

Ben.

seekthetruth

Thanks for the replies. I supposed I made a few misstatements in the OP, I was just wondering about the validity of some theists claims that we have fragments of the new testament only a decade or two after "jesus" existed, so I suppose I should have said "when was the earliest fragment of the NT".

I looked up the Rylands papyrus, and it also talked about a different fragment, the Magdalen papyrus. The site says that it was originally dated as 2nd century, but is now dated between 30-70 AD. Anyone heard of this papyrus? Is this site full of bullshit?

Nazaroo

Although it could be said that Codex Vaticanus ("B") and Sinaiticus ("Aleph") (both dated about the 4th century) are the oldest complete Bibles, this is probably misleading for most purposes.

For instance, before this time period (4th cent. A.D.) many of the 'books' (some more like pamphlets) of the Old and New Testaments were copied and distributed in smaller collections.

For instance the major letters of Paul were bound together and hand-copied as a collection, and so also were the Gospels. Manuscripts of these collections (on papyrus) are much older than Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, and are virtually complete copies of most most of the books.

So we have for instance, for the Gospel of John, P66 (2nd cent. A.D.) and P75 (early 3rd cent.). Both of these are complete or nearly complete copies of John.

So when these earlier manuscripts are collected and counted we really have manuscripts going back all the way to 150-200 A.D. for most of the NT.

Edit: Okay, another factor to take into consideration is that because many documents have been quoted by multiple sources (early fathers, heretics, gnostic gospels etc.), it is not just the actual date of a manuscript copy that matters.

For instance, Paul's early letters are very accurately dated at around 50 A.D., due to our historical knowledge of his journeys and their contents, and factors such as the fall of Jerusalem etc. Although a few of them may have suffered a bit of editing (like 1st Corinthians), or the dislocation of a verse or two (like Romans), the essential content of these letters is not in serious dispute.

Thus even though we don't have actual copies datable to 50 A.D., for all intents and purposes, the early copies that do exist are adequate for most purposes.

The real serious disputes over documents like Pauls letters circle around Christian doctrine and dogma, or subtleties of meaning in difficult passages in the Greek original, or questions of where and how Paul relies upon earlier sources or traditions, or just what the substance of early disputes between Paul and other Jewish-Christian factions was.

hatsoff

The earliest fragment of the NT is probably the Rylands fragment, dated c. 125-160 AD, though it is possible (though unlikely) it could be as late as century III. Anyone who claims that the earliest fragment is from Century I is probably talking about the Magdelen fragments...

Yes. The Magdalen fragments have been claimed to date from century I, but those claims have not to my knowledge passed peer review. The consensus is that they date from c.175-225 or so.

Moreover, it is important to remember that both the Rylands and Magdelen fragments are incredibly short in content. If I recall correctly, they contain perhaps a dozen sentences, none of which are complete.

Ben C Smith

There is an old thread about this papyrus on this board.

(Somebody mentioned that this is probably what is being discussed when someone dates any NT document to century I, and that is half true. Another usual suspect is 7Q5.)

Ben.

hatsoff

Quite right. Sorry for missing that. I should be more careful.