The fragment in question is from the Gospel of John, is the size of a postage stamp, and is dated by biblical scholars at 125 CE.
Here is an article about the porblems wrt dating the Gospels ... Dating Early Christian Gospels Here is an excerpt To steer clear of this unwarranted prioritization, all early gospels should be regarded simply as products of pre-canonical Christianity.[40] All parts of all early gospels were likely written after the death of Jesus (ca. 30 C.E.), but before Irenaeus created a broad consensus that only four[41] individual[42] gospels could be regarded as authoritative scripture (ca. 180 C.E.). The period for the writing of the early gospels might reasonably be narrowed to something like 60-150 C.E., but the gospels should remain in a broad, rather than narrow, context. This will make it easy to see that all early gospels are analogous developments of the Jesus tradition. They have a great deal in common. (Note that this article is from a pro-bible source versus a "Jesus never walked the Earth" source.)
Here another article about the dating of the NT .... The Formation of the New Testament Canon and an excerpt from therein ... All the Gospels except John contain possible allusions to the destruction of Jerusalem, which was destroyed by the Romans in 70 A.D., and thus it is likely they were all written after that date [2]. But that assumes the statements attributed to Jesus are apocryphal--they may have been genuine, the usual doom and gloom apocalyptic fantasizing, and then confirmed only by accident (or, if one is a believer, divine destiny) when the city and its temple were actually destroyed. They could also have been added to the text later. On the other hand, it has been argued with some merit that Luke borrowed material from Josephus, and if so that would date his Gospel (and Acts) after 94 A.D. [3] Finally, there are good arguments for the existence of a lost source-text called Q which was used by Matthew and Luke to supplement their borrowing from Mark, and this has been speculatively dated as early as the 50's A.D. [3a] This is only an example of the state of ignorance we are in whenever scholars try to debate the dates of these writings. Although it remains possible that all the Gospels were written after 100, those rare scholars who try to place all Christian writings in the 2nd century have nothing to base such a position on. At least some of Paul's epistles can be reasonably taken as dating no more than 16 to 32 years after the oral tradition had begun to flourish after the death of Jesus, although adulteration of those letters by later editors remains possible, and it is also possible that even in Paul's day forgeries were being made and circulated (cf. 2 Thessalonians 2:2). The Gospels were not likely to have been written down so soon, and we have clear evidence, in numerous variations, that they were altered at various points in their transmission, and scholarly work in the last two centuries has gone far to get us to the earliest versions possible. Nevertheless, any number of unknown alterations could still have been made that have not been detected (a great many have been--both errors and deliberate alterations or omissions), and it is important to note that the ancients did not have at one glance the scope of manuscript data we have, nor did they (with a few exceptions) even have the analytical and palaeographical skills now employed to derive a reliable manuscript archetype from a scientific collation of numerous exemplars. In other words, no one in antiquity ever saw a completely accurate collection of what would eventually become the 27 New Testament books, until perhaps the time of Origen or Clement of Alexandria (see XII and XIV), and even then most likely only those few scholars would have enjoyed the privilege. But this is still doubtful--it does not appear that either man went out of his way to find and trace the history of all existing manuscripts, in all churches, and in all translations, yet that is what would have been required to decisively collate a close approximation to the original texts (and with regard to facing an even worse problem today, cf. M 267ff.; and for an example, see Bible). (Note that is not from a pro-bible source; the author is an Atheist and ancient history scholar.)
http://www.biblicaldefense.org/Rese...cal_Apologetics/new_testament_reliability.htm The New Testament is by far the most reliable ancient writing in existence today. There exist today over 24,000 copies (5,000 of them in the original Greek language) of the New Testament (either in whole or in part).1 This should be compared with the fact that only 7 copies presently exist of Plato's Tetralogies.2 Homer's Iliad is in second place behind the New Testament among ancient writings with just 643 copies.3 The earliest copy of Plato's Tetralogies is dated about 1,200 years after Plato supposedly wrote the original.4 Compare this with the earliest extant copy of the New Testament: the John Ryland's Papyri. It contains a portion of John 18. This fragment is dated at about 125AD, only 25 years after the original is thought to have been written.5 In fact, there is possibly an even earlier New Testament fragment that was found among the Dead Sea Scrolls. The fragment is called 7Q5; it is dated earlier than 70AD. Though there is heated debate about this manuscript, it has been argued that it is a part of Mark 6:52-53.6 Again, Homer's Iliad takes second place among ancient writings, second only to the New Testament. The earliest copy of any portion of Homer's Iliad is dated about 500 years after the original writing.7 When the contents of the extant manuscripts of the New Testament are compared, there appears to be 99.5% agreement. There is total agreement in the doctrines taught; the corruptions are mainly grammatical.8 Homer's Iliad once again takes second place behind the New Testament among ancient documents. Homer's Iliad has a 95% accuracy when its copies are compared.9 Since there are so few remaining copies of Plato's writings, agreement between these copies is not considered a factor (they are probably all copies of the same copy).10 Comparison of 3 Ancient Writings Homer's Illiad: 643 Extant Copies Earliest extant copy is from 500 years after the original 95% Agreement between copies Plato's Tetralogies 7 Extant copies Earliest extant copy is from 1200 years after the original Accuracy unmentioned New Testament over 24,000 Extant copies Earliest extant copy is from 25 years after the original 99.5% Agreement between copies The following manuscripts are some of the better known copies of the New Testament. The John Rylands Papyri is the oldest undisputed fragment of the New Testament still in existence. It is dated between 125 and 130AD. It contains a portion of John 18.11 The Bodmer Papyrus II contains most of John's Gospel and dates between 150 and 200AD.12 The Chester Beatty Papyri includes major portions of the New Testament; it is dated around 200AD.13 Codex Vaticanus contains nearly the entire Bible and is dated between 325 and 350AD.14 Codex Sinaiticus contains nearly all of the New Testament and approximately half of the Old Testament. It is dated at about 350AD.15 Codex Alexandrinus encompasses almost the entire Bible and was copied around 400AD.16 Codex Ephraemi represents every New Testament book except for 2 John and 2 Thessalonians. Ephraemi is dated in the 400's AD.17 Codex Bezae has the Gospels and Acts as its contents and is dated after 450AD.18
same source from the last post: Liberal scholars have attempted to find the so-called true Jesus of history. It was their goal to find a non-supernatural Jesus who never claimed to be God. These scholars believe that Christ's claim to be God and Savior, and His miraculous life (especially His bodily resurrection from the dead) are merely legends. The true Jesus of history was a great teacher; still, He was merely a man.21 Therefore, if it can be shown that early church leaders, who personally knew the apostles, taught that the miraculous aspects of Christ's life actually occurred and that Jesus did in fact make the bold claims recorded in the New Testament, then the legend hypothesis fails. Historians recognize that legends take centuries to develop.22 A legend is a ficticious story that, through the passage of time, many people come to accept as historically accurate. A legend can begin to develop only if the eyewitnesses and those who knew the eyewitnesses are already dead. Otherwise, the eyewitnesses or those who knew them would refute the legend. Therefore, a legend has its beginning a generation or two after the event or person in question has passed. However, before a legend receives wide acceptance, several centuries are needed, for there is still a remembrance of the person or event due to information passed on orally from generation to generation. After several centuries, new generations arise without the sufficient knowledge of the person or event necessary to refute the legend. If a written record compiled by eyewitnesses is passed on to future generations, legends can be easily refuted. One apostolic father, Clement, was the Bishop of Rome. He wrote his letter to the Corinthians in 95AD. The following is a brief quote from this letter: Let us fear the Lord Jesus (Christ), whose blood was given for us.23 The Apostles received the Gospel for us from the Lord Jesus Christ; Jesus Christ was sent from God.24 He made the Lord Jesus Christ the firstfruit, when He raised Him from the dead.25 The following conclusions can now be drawn: First, the apostolic fathers form an unbroken chain from the apostles to their day. Second, people who personally knew the apostles accepted the leadership of the apostolic fathers. Third, the apostolic fathers taught essentially the same thing as the New Testament. Fourth, the apostolic fathers and their followers were willing to die for the teachings passed down to them from the apostles themselves. Therefore, our New Testament accurately represents the teachings of the apostles. This includes such key doctrines as the deity of Christ, His substitutionary death, virgin birth, bodily resurrection, and salvation through Him alone.
This is true but misleading. I agree that the document trail following the Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus is notably pristine. Ahh more like it. The Chester Beatty Papyri (200 CE at the earliest) which contains multiple NT books appears to be the most substantial earliest NT MSS. Accepting the 200 CE dating, that leaves 170 years unaccounted for. What we really do not know with any certainty is document history of the NT books prior to 200 CE.
but again...even if your assertion is correct, then that it still makes it the most accurate ancient text we have...no other document even comes close to us possessing extant copies within 200 years of the original...and given the agreement in the copies, i don't see that there's much debate for that, frankly. also this alleviates many of the concerns that i hear thrown about regarding the council of nicea since they didn't convene until well after 300 A.D. (like 350 if i remember right). that...plus the fact it's hard to argue that early Christians believed what they believed...we have edicts from Rome that were documented historically of Christians being put to death because they claimed Christ as their God. we have citations in Paul's letters which most scholars date around 50 A.D. or so to creeds which affirm the idea of the traditional notion of Christ among Christians as Lord. i'm not saying there was absolute consensus on that...because frankly there has never been absolute consensus on anything. but clearly the dominant theme, even from the majoirty of the books that don't make the cut was that Jesus Christ was the Son of God who died for man's sins to reconcile man with God. that he was crucified and resurrected. whether you choose to believe that is an entirely different matter, altogether. but let's be clear...that's what was communicated from the early church.
MM, like previously times we have had these discussions I am trying to proselytize. My point is generally that the NT is lacking in historicity. This implies that the beliefs in the NT require faith more so than facts, which imo is not a bad thing. The following conclusions can now be drawn: First, the apostolic fathers form an unbroken chain from the apostles to their day. Second, people who personally knew the apostles accepted the leadership of the apostolic fathers. Third, the apostolic fathers taught essentially the same thing as the New Testament. Fourth, the apostolic fathers and their followers were willing to die for the teachings passed down to them from the apostles themselves. Therefore, our New Testament accurately represents the teachings of the apostles. This includes such key doctrines as the deity of Christ, His substitutionary death, virgin birth, bodily resurrection, and salvation through Him alone. This is more tradition than history. From my readings, early Christian belief had many expressions. One of these expressions orignated from a gnostic (or gnostic tinged) group like Pauline communities. There appears to a theological battle between the gnostics (Gentile) and the Peterine comunities (Jewish). It appears that this battle lead to the winner (Peterine) modifying what would be cannonical scripture to be less supportive of the loser's cause. Here is a link that supports that case: The Birth of the Christian Religion and more specifically The Birth of the Christian Religion - Chapter I (Note that the author of the book at the time of the writing was an ordained Catholic priest.) The author notes that the original letters of Paul appear to be redacted at a later time for theological reasons.
Another interesting read ... Forgery In Christianity: Chapter 5 One may turn the thousands of pages of the Ante-Nicene Fathers before Irenaeus in vain to find a direct word of quotation from written Gospels, nor (except as above, recorded) even bare mention of the names of Matthew, Mark, Luke or John, as writers of Gospels. The above words of Irenaeus are registered in his Book III, chapter i; in the first two Books, while, like Justin, he quotes "sayings" which are to be found in our present texts, as in the apocryphas, he does not mention "Gospel" or any of the four reputed evangelists, until chapter xxii of Book II, where he mentions the word "Gospels" and those of John and Luke, and assails their record of the early death of Jesus as "heresy." But beginning with chapter x of Book III, he bristles with the names of and direct quotations from all Four; and so with all the following Fathers. It seems, therefore, a fair inference that Irenaeus had just heard of these Four Gospels at the time the last chapters of the second of the two Books were composed; and that they came into existence, or to his knowledge, just before the time be began to compose Book III. And certainly these Four Gospels could not have been in existence and circulation very long before they would come to the eager hands of the active and prolific Bishop of Lyons, who had recently come from the tutelage of his friend Polycarp, -- "disciple of the Apostle John" -- venerable Bishop of Smyrna, who sent him to Lyons, and who, for his part, shows not a suspicion of knowledge of them. And these Gospels, just now come into existence, were immediately and fiercely attacked by Bishop Irenaeus as false and "heresy" in the vital points of the crucifixion and early death of Jesus, who, says the Bishop, lived to very old age, even maybe till the times of Trajan, 98-117, as vouched for by the Apostle John and other apostles and by the [oral] "Gospel." This, too, casts discredit on these Gospels as containing authentic record of the apostolic "traditions," condemned in this vital particular by the only two Bishops, Papias and Irenaeus, who -- for a century and a half -- mention any Gospel-writings at all. (Note that the author is both a lawyer and an Atheist. Hopefully one can look past this and see Bishop Irenaeus's quotes for they are. ) The Ante-Nicene Fathers were an interesting lot. Some complained that their own letters were tampered with. Others claim that lying was a means to an end.
interesting that Paul would be labeled as a Gnostic. That's certainly not the Paul I know. I have not read that of Irenaeus before, and I don't know it's accuracy. But again I'm struck by early creeds that predate Paul's letters...and the very fact that these Christians were very quickly put to death for worshipping Jesus Christ as opposed to worshipping the emperor. I think what I find a bit shady about this is that the next answer for this criticism over what happened 2000 years ago is always, "oh, well...they changed those texts to say what they wanted them to say." if we use the documents we have...and the bits we have from very early on...and the citations to early creeds..and the historical evidence that points to those who followed what they called the Way...and the book of Acts...I think we have to work really hard to say that 1st century Christians didn't believe in the Jesus Christ that I believe in today. and that idea has been affirmed time and time again by people who came in doubting and came out saying, "hey...that is what the early church believed, primarily...and those documents say what they said at their inception." that's even noted in the article i posted to you, above. And when I read MOST of the books that didn't make the cut, I get that same impression as well. We don't have the secret letter of James saying, "hey...Jesus wasn't really a real guy." Rather we have him describing an intimate account with Jesus, Peter and himself after the resurrection. We don't see from the Gospel of Peter anything other than the picture of Jesus that we understand from the New Testament books. Even in the Gospel of Thomas which is hailed as sorta the king of gnostic gospels, we get nothing but the sayings of Christ, many of which are directly mirrored in the New Testament. No Worries, if you're interested...pick up a book by Josh McDowell who was a huge historical critic of the New Testament, who later came to write that he was fully convinced that the entire thing was written before 70 A.D. He does a great job of explaining that. The book is called A Guide to Today's Religions or something like that. I think it's referenced in the article I mentioned as well.
I think we have to work really hard to say that 1st century Christians didn't believe in the Jesus Christ that I believe in today Some obviously did, buth others did not. One theory about why the NT was canonized when it was is that the cannonization by the "mainstream" Christian sects was in response to the cannonization by the gnostic Marcion sect at ~140 CE. Thus, the Marcion cannonization forced the issue and started the theological war in which they end up losing. Of note is that Marion included Luke in his cannon. To get Luke acceptable, Marcion had to redact Luke heavily (or so says the mainstrean Christians). Marcion also made similar claims against the mainstream.
interesting...and i would not disagree with the assertion that some believed other things. even today, that is true. our unity is that we point to Jesus Christ.
This is the first time I've been able to get online today. I'm glad you moved this into a new thread, No Worries. I'll have to read the other posts in this thread later. The fragment is actually a little bigger than a business card (measuring 2.5 x 3.5). I realize this is off topic a little bit, but what's interesting to me about this fragment is that many liberal New Testament scholars dated the Gospel of John no earlier than 160 CE before it was found. It's a good illustration of what I believe liberal New Testament scholars do in general -- make every effort to get people to accept a late date for the Gospels. They also make bold statements about the reliability of the Gospels. Many times, they offer no proof. They merely expect people to accept what the say because they're "scholars." Let me give you an example of what I'm talking about. I wrote down this quote from a book I was thumbing through the other day simply because I couldn't believe the audacity of its authors. "As historical documents and testimony, the Gospels, as every scholar knows, are notoriously unreliable." (The Dead Sea Scrolls Deception, Michael Baigent and Richard Leigh, xiii ). What proof did they offer? None. It's much easier to prove your point if you're not required to offer proof. All of us stupid people just need to listen to the "scholars." And, conveniently enough, they effectively defined a scholar as someone who knows that the Gospels are notoriously unreliable. In other words, if you don't believe that, you can't be a real scholar. That's arrogant and deceptive. John Shelby Spong seems to do this kind of thing a lot in his writings. Rather than have to go through the hard work of debating your point, just gloss over it by saying that no scholar would possibly accept the other position. I'm not trying to lay a blanket charge against anyone who would question the date or the reliability of the gospels; I'm just pointing out what I frequently see. I'm sure some conservative "scholars" would say we have notarized, autographed originals if they thought they could get away with it. So don't take my comments to indicate that I believe it's a one-sided problem. Again, I appreciate you starting a new thread on this, and I look forward to reading through the other posts later.
TraJ, The other side is also not without fault. They confuse their faith beliefs as uiversal truths. I for one am very conscious whenever I read NT articles. Many of the authors have axes to grind, which is why I have listed the author's background in each of the articles I posted above.
Many liberal scholars scoff at the historical accuracy of the Bible, but from what I've seen, the evidence tends to go against them. They have constantly had their assertions shattered by archaeological evidence. Archaeology is just one way of establishing the reliability of New Testament and biblical accounts, but I think it's a good start. I don't know much about archaeology, but these two did. 2. William Foxwell Albright Foremost archaeologist of the 20th century (1897-1971; American): To say that Albright made innumerable contributions to Middle Eastern archaeology would be an understatement. No archaeologist before or since has attained to his level of achievements across the spectrum of requisite disciplines for judging the reliability of the Bible’s documents (Semitic languages, Middle Eastern history, and archaeological techniques). Though initially approaching the biblical stories as if they were fiction, Albright’s discoveries turned him into a believer in the Bible’s historicity. He concluded: "The excessive skepticism shown toward the Bible by important historical schools of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, certain phases of which still appear periodically, has been progressively discredited. Discovery after discovery has established the accuracy of innumerable details, and has brought increased recognition to the value of the Bible as a source of history." 39. William Mitchell Ramsay Foremost archaeologist of Asia Minor (1851-1939; British) – Ramsay had been schooled in the Tübingen theory, which declared that the New Testament documents were written by second century Christians who were trying to insert fabricated stories into first century settings. This supposedly resulted in many geographical and historical inaccuracies. Though thoroughly persuaded by this and other views of higher criticism in his university studies, Ramsay was surprised to find corroboration of the book of Acts once he got on the field and examined the topography and antiquities of Asia Minor for himself. The places, the titles, and the technical terms Luke used precisely fit first century Asia Minor (see Volume IV for details). Using this field study to scrutinize the travels of Paul in the book of Acts, Ramsay eventually reversed his position. He wrote: In fact, beginning with a fixed idea that the work was essentially a second century composition, and never relying on its evidence as trustworthy for first century conditions, I gradually came to find it a useful ally in some obscure and difficult investigations. Ramsay concluded that "Luke’s history is unsurpassed in respect of its trustworthiness." Because of his many discoveries, Ramsay is generally regarded as one of the greatest archaeologists of all time. His personal views in theology underwent a change from the extremes of radical criticism to acceptance of the Bible’s history and doctrines, as can be seen from the more than twenty books he wrote to support and interpret the Bible. http://www.sciencediscussion.com/DisplayAC.aspx?Loc=AstroCosmo/Article/A008700.html
As for the trustworthiness of the Gospel writers themselves, there's a book called "The Testimony of the Evangelists: The Gospels examined by the Rules of Evidence," by Simon Greenleaf (1783-1853). He was a famous Harvard University law professor. The book was originally published a long time ago, but his writing style is so elegant that I thought some might be interested in reading the following excerpts. S.30 The great truths which the apostles declared were that Christ had risen from the dead, and that only through repentance from sin, and faith in him, could men hope for salvation. This doctrine they asserted with one voice, everywhere, not only under the greatest discouragements, but in the face of the most appalling terrors that can be presented to the mind of man. Their master had recently perished as a malefactor, by the sentence of a public tribunal. His religion sought to overthrow the religions of the whole world. The laws of every country were against the teachings of his disciples. Propogating their new faith, even in the most inoffensive and peaceful manner, they could expect nothing but contempt, opposition, revilings, bitter persecutions, stripes, imprisonments, torments, and cruel deaths. Yet this faith they zealously did propogate; and all these miseries they endured undismayed, nay rejoicing. As one after another was put to a miserable death, the survivors only prosecuted their work with increased vigor and resolution. The annals of military warfare afford scarcely of the like heroic constancy, patience, and unblenching courage. They had every possible motive to review carefully the grounds of their faith, and the evidences of the great facts and truths which they asserted, and these motives were pressed upon their attention with the most melencholy and terrific frequency. It was therefore impossible that they could have persisted in affirming the truths they have narrated, had not actually Jesus risen from the dead, and had they not known this fact as certainly as they knew any other fact. If it were morally possible for them to have been deceived in this matter, every human motive operated for them to discover and disavow their error. To have persisted in so gross a falsehood, after it was known to them, was not only to encounter, for life, all the evils which man could inflict from without, but to endure also the pangs of inward and conscious guilt; with no hope of future peace, no testimony of a good conscience, no expectation of honor or esteem among men, no hope of happiness in this life, or the life to come. S.47 There are other internal marks of truths in the narratives of the evangelists, which, however, need here be only alluded to, as they have been treated with great fullness and force by able writers, whose works are familiar to all. Among these may be mentioned the nakedness of the narratives; the absence of all parade by the writers about their own integrity, of all anxiety to be believed, or to impress others with a good opinion of themselves or their cause, of all the marks of wonder, or of desire to excite astonishment at the greatness of the events they record, and of all appearance of design to exalt their master. On the contrary, there is apparently the most perfect indifference on their part whether they are believed or not; or rather, the evident consciousness that they are recording events well known to all in their country and times, and undoubtedly to be believed, like any other matter of public history, by readers in all other countries and ages. Their simplicity and artlessness, also, should not pass unnoticed, in readily stating even those things most disparaging to themselves. Their want of faith in their master, their dullness of apprehension of his teachings, their strifes for preeminence, their desertion of the Lord in his hour of extreme peril; these and many other incidents tending directly to their own dishonor are nevertheless set down with all the directness and sincerity of truth, as men writing under the deepest sense of responsibility to God. http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/t...f=sr_1_1/002-0879851-0680013?v=glance&s=books
"Imagine you're a 12-year old boy. And one day you're told you're God's only son, but more than that, you're God. How long do you think it would take to come to grips with something that huge? Maybe, say, 18 years? In the Bible, Jesus suddenly goes from age 12 to 30. Twelve to thirty. Now that's some pretty bad storytelling. Where are the volumes of text dealing with the missing 18 years?" - Rufus, the 13th Apostle
yeah...you're right...these guys who wrote these gospels who had no idea of who Jesus was when he was between the ages of 12-30 should really have spent some time making up some stories about his childhood. i have friends who i have met in the past 3 years...they could give you great portraits as eyewitnesses to events of my life in those 3 years....to do so for years they didn't know me would be largely irresponsible, if it's sold as accurate.
yeah...you're right...these guys who wrote these gospels who had no idea of who Jesus was when he was between the ages of 12-30 should really have spent some time making up some stories about his childhood. Why no mention of the 0 - 11 years? And why would the disiples or apostles write about a virgin birth to which they certainly bore no witness?
