Oldest surviving copy of the gospels

[Ubereil]

Anyone who knows how old the oldest copies of the gospels are? There's a guy on a forum (of course) claiming we have copies from as early as AD90s, while Wikipedia claims our oldest copies are from the 4th century (without citing sources, of course). Who to trust? The dogmatic Christian or wikipedia?

(If you happen to sit on some modern example of a cult leader who managed to dope his followers he could do magic I'd love to hear that too. You know, while we're at the subject of questioning the validity of the Bible.)

Übereil

 

[blatantninja]

Anyone who knows how old the oldest copies of the gospels are? There's a guy on a forum (of course) claiming we have copies from as early as AD90s, while Wikipedia claims our oldest copies are from the 4th century (without citing sources, of course). Who to trust? The dogmatic Christian or wikipedia?

(If you happen to sit on some modern example of a cult leader who managed to dope his followers he could do magic I'd love to hear that too. You know, while we're at the subject of questioning the validity of the Bible.)

Übereil

Well, it depends on what you mean by copies. Complete copies aren't found too much earlier than the 4th century, however there are several partial copies from the 3rd century. Lots of fragments are floating around that date from the 2nd century and a very few have surfaced from the end of the 1st century. Additionally, there are surviving references to the many of the gospels (both canonical and non) from other writings as earlier as the 1st century.

 

[dteowner]

Corwin's your guy for the first question.

I believe the Dead Sea Scrolls, which I think are the 4th century docs you reference, are the oldest surviving biblical documents. I seem to remember that those AD90 references weren't biblical themselves but rather some guy talking about other people talking about "religious-y things". Not really the field of trivia I internalize, but I'm pretty sure my memory on this is correct.

 

[Lucky Day]

the oldest complete copy of the New Testament is the Textus Vaticanus in the Vatican archives. That dates about the mid 4th century.

The Textus Sanaiticus has about half the New Testament but it was complete when it was written between 325 and 360 AD.

There's also the Alexiandrian Text which was written about a century later.

There are various fragments still in existence that are older of course.

Concerning the Old Testament there's obviously the Dead Sea Scrolls and a version of the Samaritan Pentateuch I have heard is about the 3rd C BC. I'm having trouble tracking that down at the moment for accuracy.

 

[JemyM]

The New Testament is a very different construct than the gospels really. It's pretty much a political manifesto for a group that got the name the Proto-Orthodox (shall in no way be confused with the Orthodox Church). The New Testament puts together selected gospels with a couple of letters, Acts and the Revelation. The end product try to establish Paul's perspective to be the true one and that the Church is the body of Christ.

Age on gospels is an ongoing debate. Much of it is done with paleography (not carbon dating) which means you try to estimate dating based on how people write. One important thing to note however is that early copies of gospels are different than later ones. The adulteress story was added later for example. Sections have been added, removed or "corrected". Not slight changes either. The part about resurrection is missing from early copies of Marcus, and it's different in each gospel in the bible. Furthermore the beginning of Matthew and Luke tell different stories. There are pretty funny misspellings too, such as "Locust" in eating honey and locusts. "Locust" is a letter from the word for "Pancakes". Incidently some of the earlier gospels do say "pancakes".

 

[JemyM]

Corwin's your guy for the first question.

If you look for an apologetic yes.

 

[dteowner]

If you look for an apologetic yes.

Indeed, it's just silly to bring a religious scholar into the discussion when there's a foaming-at-the-mouth atheist ready to give us the "straight scoop".

 

[blatantninja]

I don't care for a lot of Jemy's views, but he is right on most of what he posted about the historical changes of the Gospel documents over time. That history itself is as fascinating as the narrative in the texts in many respects.

For instance, while the adulteress story is absent in earlier versions of John, and most scholars agree that it was added in the 3rd or 4th century, at the same time, its generally agreed that the story itself is significantly older and is authentic. It's probable that it was incorporated from another Gospel that fell out of use. Its also been theorized that its placement in the text, just before the first mention of Mary Magdalene was designed to muddy her reputation as there were still people at the time that followed the Gospel of Mary and considered her at least an equal of Peter.

 

[JemyM]

Indeed, it's just silly to bring a religious scholar into the discussion when there's a foaming-at-the-mouth atheist ready to give us the "straight scoop".

There is no "authority" in science, especially not in history. There are positions with evidence for and against each position. An apologetic deliver the most favorable answer to Christian ideology. A historical scholar doesn't deliver "straight scoops", they deliver "maybe", "depends", "either... or..."...

Also theism/nontheism is rather irrelevant. We are talking about historical documents here. Their dates and content cause problems for fundamentalists, but those are the only ones who demand that the texts are the breath of God, perfectly incoherent, perfectly translated and perfectly true.

 

[DArtagnan]

Autism at its best

 

[JemyM]

That history itself is as fascinating as the narrative in the texts in many respects.

Indeed. The birth and growth of Christianity is a fascinating story. My extended interest in history that made me pick advanced history in college and study the history of ideas at the university came from my studies in biblical history and the history of Christianity.

 

[Lucky Day]

if you will notice that wikipedia does site where it references the sources, such as the sources for the Encycopedia Judaica.
---
Also, keep in mind the simply because they are older doesn't make them more accurate.

The Bible in is inerrant in its original text is the conservative viewpoint. You'll see that some of these older versions the scribe deliberately left sections blank for example, sections where we know there are passages.

This was one of the reasons the Textus Receptus was penned by Erasmus, going to a more accurate Greek source (the Majority Text) rather than relying on what the Vatican said about the Bible based on Jerome's Latin translation.

The Textus Receptus is what the KJV, and other Bibles of that era are translated from and which is why most ministers will recommend it still today over the NIV because, for one reason, the NIV takes a lot of primacy from the Textus Vaticanus.

 

[JemyM]

The Bible in is inerrant in its original text is the conservative viewpoint.

can't write properly, tired.

I dunno. The Bible as we know it is a 15th century product based on a 4th century canon. It's a library of selected texts gathered thanks to politics. The debate on what books was to be considered "true" was pretty heated in the 3rd century. The debate itself was rooted in that the texts people tried to mash together didn't fit together. We have plenty of books from the "Church Fathers" who were among the winning group. They attacked other texts harshly and decided to promote Hebrew religion and Paul's interpretion as compatible (they aren't really). Some interpret this that they knew right from wrong but they didn't. Half of Paul's supposed letters for example were written by different authors according to modern comparison.

 

[Corwin]

I try to stay out of religious discussions, but JM, MUCH of your last post is grossly WRONG!! You don't have to believe me, I only sometimes lecture in Biblical Hermeneutics, but I don't have the time, patience or space to go into detail. It would take several lectures worth of material to do it all justice!!

Lucky, good job. I detest the NIV!!

 

[JemyM]

I know enough about your "hermeneutic" standards to know you can't offer much when it comes to history.

The "details" you have problem with is the works of Erasmus that used a 4th century canon for the first machine-copied Bible in the 15th century. The invention of the Copying-Machine had a strong impact when it came to streamlining information since it was the first time two copies of a book were the same. This is something one can't say for earlier copies.

Further "details" you have problem with is the early political conflict which makes up much of the Church History in the 2-4th century. How groups deny (or never acknowledge) the Hebrew religion or Paul's letters. How the Church of Rome is established as the "winner" and the other interpretions. The late addition of Acts and it's importance establishing the Church as a political power.

It's also a rather common knowledge that only seven of Paul's epistles are undisputingly written by the same person (Romans, 1 & 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, 1 Thessalonians, and Philemon).

 

[Corwin]

I'm amazed at your presumptions concerning what I have problems with!! Surprising since I'm the one with several degrees, including an honours one in History!! (Specialising in Ancient and Mediaeval studies!!)

 

[JemyM]

I'm amazed at your presumptions concerning what I have problems with!! Surprising since I'm the one with several degrees, including an honours one in History!! (Specialising in Ancient and Mediaeval studies!!)

Been pondering about your age recently. The way you write, the way you spell etc doesn't strike me as adult nor academic, so say the Swede who do not even have English as his primary language. But all that regards you as a person I know, so it doesn't have anything to do with the subject, just like the degrees or background you claim to have.

I am beyond "opinion" or "authority" on this subject. All I care for are facts and sources, facts and sources. Physical source and it's history first, what we can possible know about the book or piece of paper we got, it's translations, who had it in his or her possession and it's validity. Only after all of that is on the table, the text and variations of the text comes into play, and we may have to acknowledge right from start that the text we have is deeply flawed and have to carry a double-theory in mind; one that treats the text as valid and one that treats it as invalid. If we right out of the bat decide to treat the text as valid only and do not bother about the second theory, our work could as well be thrown out of the window.

Hermeneutics is an under-appreciated way of learning indeed, but when it comes to it, facts and sources are still the basic building blocks of historical work. Hermeneutics only apply at the end of the ladder. Even if the foundation is strong, hermeneutics is a troublesome approach due to the cognitive mechanisms behind an understanding that seems crystal clear.

I happen to be one who actually dragged myself through more courses and books on this subject than average Joe. If someone begin to deny the circumstances around early church history and the history of the bible it's game over for their credibility. They could as well deny gravity.

 

[Damian Mahadevan]

Ugh. Can we respect other people viewpoints please? Even if Corwin's wrong you should repsect his opinion on the matter as he has studied it as much as you if not more so.

 

[JemyM]

Ugh. Can we respect other people viewpoints please? Even if Corwin's wrong you should repsect his opinion on the matter as he has studied it as much as you if not more so.

No.

"Respecting opinion" is nothing more than rhetoric and thought-stopping cliché, commonly used by con-men to cover their insufficient capacity to support their badly supported position. People with such capacity never ask for respect for their opinion since they do not need to (that is, they have a fact-based position instead of "opinion". They can present these facts to show why they have a certain position, then change their position if further facts are presented that invalidate their former position).

If truth is important to you there is no such thing as "respecting opinion", especially not in academic work where "opinion" is to be demolished, hacked and chewed (especially your own). If you do not feel truth is important, then you pay with your credibility and downgrade the value in what you have to say on any subject.

There is also no such thing as "studied more". If you spent anytime on an university you know that there's no such thing as "authority" in knowledge. Each specific narrow subject consists of observations (or evidence) that shall be put on the table, then judged. Different "opinions" (positions) happen when people lack access to evidence. What is done then is to present such evidence. An academic change their "opinion" (positions) accordingly since carrying an "opinion" that deny evidence is dishonorable and asking someone to "respect my position" is pretty much throwing your credibility out of the window.

Because there are different approaches or perspectives in any given field, it's also common courtesy to carry multiple theories on how to combine the presented evidence at the same time. Thus no "straight scoop" exists, there is however "straight evidence". Let's take the "gospels" for example. In this case the artifacts (ancient copies) are the evidence. Then we test the evidence (Carbon-dating, paleography etc) which creates new evidence. Finally we put it all on the table and try to make sense of it all. We cannot exclude evidence because it doesn't fit our "opinion".

 

[Corwin]

JM, I have forgotten more about English spelling and grammar than you will ever learn. I taught it for over 30 years and one of my degrees is in English Literature. Your attitude and narrow PoV is getting tiresome. I have 2 children who are also university graduates; what do you have except a lot of opinions!!!!