05 Apr 12
Originally posted by robbie carrobieWhy do you think it is that from the thousands of papyri and manuscripts containing Gospel text, the earliest is dated to roughly 100 years (approx) after Jesus died. A quick calculation of mine puts the average date for Gospel text some 200 years after Jesus died. How come no fragments have been found earlier? As you said, there are literally thousands.
Pick up any Bible and you will find the earliest surviving piece of the New testament,
although i think you mean in manuscript or papyri form. Probably the most extensive
is the Sahidic Coptic texts, copies of earlier Greek manuscripts dated to the second
century, the oldest, I dont know. Try here, a fragment of John dated to 125 CE, a mere
...[text shortened]... er its authorship.
http://www.usefulcharts.com/religion/oldest-new-testament-manuscripts.html
05 Apr 12
1 edit
Originally posted by Proper KnobSimply because this is when they were authored, revelation for example was authored
Why do you think it is that from the thousands of papyri and manuscripts containing Gospel text, the earliest is dated to roughly 100 years (approx) after Jesus died. A quick calculation of mine puts the average date for Gospel text some 200 years after Jesus died. How come no fragments have been found earlier? As you said, there are literally thousands.
in 90CE, or there about, a fragment from 125 CE is immensely close. Clearly the
period from the manuscripts authorship and to a fragment detailing its contents, in this
instance is remarkably close. That any at all should have survived given the expense
of producing parchments and the susceptibility of papyri to decay is remarkable in itself.
05 Apr 12
Originally posted by Proper KnobThere is much better support for the Gospel text and copies closer to the
Why do you think it is that from the thousands of papyri and manuscripts containing Gospel text, the earliest is dated to roughly 100 years (approx) after Jesus died. A quick calculation of mine puts the average date for Gospel text some 200 years after Jesus died. How come no fragments have been found earlier? As you said, there are literally thousands.
original than any other ancient text.
05 Apr 12
Originally posted by robbie carrobieThe earliest known fragment for the Gospel of Luke is dated 175CE, for Matthew it's 150CE, for Mark it's 350CE, and for John it's 125CE. Correct me if i'm wrong but i'm sure you don't believe these are the dates they were authored?
Simply because this is when they were authored, revelation for example was authored
in 90CE, or there about, a fragment from 125 CE is immensely close. Clearly the
period from the manuscripts authorship and to a fragment detailing its contents, in this
instance is remarkably close. That any at all should have survived given the expense
of producing parchments and the susceptibility of papyri to decay is remarkable in itself.
05 Apr 12
Originally posted by Proper KnobIt was common practice back then that once a new copy of a manuscript was
The earliest known fragment for the Gospel of Luke is dated 175CE, for Matthew it's 150CE, for Mark it's 350CE, and for John it's 125CE. Correct me if i'm wrong but i'm sure you don't believe these are the dates they were authored?
made and verified for accuracy that the old manuscript would be destroyed.
The same thing occurred with secular works of history and literature. Why
don't you check into the dates of those manuscripts as a comparison?
05 Apr 12
Originally posted by RJHindsIf it was common place to destroy a piece of manuscript after it had been copied how come there are still thousands of pieces of manuscript and papyri still in existence? You're not making any sense.
It was common practice back then that once a new copy of a manuscript was
made and verified for accuracy that the old manuscript would be destroyed.
The same thing occurred with secular works of history and literature. Why
don't you check into the dates of those manuscripts as a comparison?
05 Apr 12
Originally posted by Proper Knobno i dont, but they're close enough to dispel any uncertainty that what we have in our
The earliest known fragment for the Gospel of Luke is dated 175CE, for Matthew it's 150CE, for Mark it's 350CE, and for John it's 125CE. Correct me if i'm wrong but i'm sure you don't believe these are the dates they were authored?
hands is a faithfully transmitted testimony of events.
05 Apr 12
Originally posted by Proper KnobForget it then. Believe wharever you want. It is really none of my business.
If it was common place to destroy a piece of manuscript after it had been copied how come there are still thousands of pieces of manuscript and papyri still in existence? You're not making any sense.
05 Apr 12
Originally posted by robbie carrobieThe earliest fragments are on average dated around 150-200 years after the death of Jesus, you seriously think that's close enough to dispel any uncertainty over their accuracy.
no i dont, but they're close enough to dispel any uncertainty that what we have in our
hands is a faithfully transmitted testimony of events.
05 Apr 12
Originally posted by robbie carrobiethe utter unreasonableness is from your false assumptions. don't presume to know what "people like me" are willing to accept.
Who was claiming they were contemporaries? the fact of the matter is, people like you
are perfectly willing to accept that Alexander lived even though the accounts about him
are scant and were compiled 500 years after his death and yet the Bible, which has
literally thousands of extant manuscripts and papyri and is much better attested to than ...[text shortened]... our prejudice. We knew that it existed, this little incidence
merely demonstrates the extent.
we are talking about evidence for the existence of jesus, not evidence for the existence of alexander, so try to stay on topic.
the only secular sources you were able to present were 1) non-contemporary and 2) displayed evidence for the existence of christians.
i have not questioned the evidence for the existence of christians, i accept that christians existed.
so it remains that you have no evidence for the existence of jesus apart from hearsay. this is about as far as you'll be able to take this since dig as you might, you will not find the evidence. people much more dedicated than you or i have tried and come up with nothing.
05 Apr 12
Originally posted by RJHindsnobody knows the real authors of those books. they were all written long after jesus's alleged ministry and there is no evidence that any of the mysterious authors ever met jesus.
It is eyewitness testimony, dummy. Luke says so. Do You even know who
Matthew, Mark, John, Peter, and James are in relation to Christ? Obviously,
the answer is "No".
all you have is hearsay.
05 Apr 12
Originally posted by VoidSpiriti provided a plethora of sources which mentioned Christ by name! please visit
the utter unreasonableness is from your false assumptions. don't presume to know what "people like me" are willing to accept.
we are talking about evidence for the existence of jesus, not evidence for the existence of alexander, so try to stay on topic.
the only secular sources you were able to present were 1) non-contemporary and 2) displayed evid ...[text shortened]... the evidence. people much more dedicated than you or i have tried and come up with nothing.
boohoo.com its for those having a bad hairdo day!