From the earlier papyrus and codexs. The early scraps from which copies of the original gospels were believed to have been made. There are no original manuscripts of the Bible anywhere.
The earliest piece of the Bible is p52, whose date is around 125-150, which is also around the time "John" was supposed to have written it.
Here is a picture of it:The Rylands Library Papyrus P52, also known as the St John's fragment, is a papyrus fragment measuring only 3.5 by 2.5 inches (9 by 6.4 cm) at its widest, conserved at the John Rylands Library, Manchester, UK. The front (recto) contains lines from the Gospel of John 18:31-33, in Greek, and the back (verso) contains lines from verses 37-38.
Although Rylands P52 is generally accepted as the earliest extant record of a canonical New Testament text[1], the dating of the papyrus is by no means the subject of consensus among critical scholars. The style of the script is strongly Hadrianic, which would suggest a date somewhere between 125 and 160 CE.
It says:
". . . The Jews . . . unto . . . not . . . any man . . . That the saying . . . he spake, signifying . . . die . . . entered . . .hall . . . and said . . . Jews?"
The next oldest piece is some 50 years later and was supposed to have been written earlier. How do they know? They don't for sure, but they base it on character dating - none of the NT fragments have been radiometric dated.
For example, here is the next oldest:
p64
The "Magdalen" papyrus was purchased in Luxor, Egypt in 1901 by Reverend Charles Bousfield Huleatt (1863-1908), who identified the Greek fragments as portions of the Gospel of Matthew (Chapter 26:23 and 31) and presented them to Magdalen College, Oxford, where they are cataloged as P. Magdalen Greek 17 (Gregory-Aland P64) and whence they have their name. When the fragments were finally published by Colin H. Roberts in 1953, illustrated with a photograph, the hand was characterized as "an early predecessor of the so-called 'Biblical Uncial'" which began to emerge towards the end of the 2nd century. The uncial style is epitomised by the later biblical Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus. Comparative paleographical analysis has remained the methodological key for dating the manuscript: the consensus is, ca AD 200.
There are a few more scraps such as these:
http://www.kchanson.com/papyri.html#NTP
but they mostly date from the 3rd century on.
This is the fossil record which supposedly supports the Bible. One has to wonder how they got a whole book out of such tiny fragments. But then, human imagination is quite extraordinary.
edit:
BTW, as everyone knows, there were many versions of Xianity going around at the time (it being a very popular mystery cult) and had many people writing many different things. There are gospels of each of the 12 apostles (but only four were accepted in a final vote).
There were also many other writings that many of the early church fathers thought should be in the Canon (the official Bible) but some others that they should keep as true but not read in church because of the content (e.g., the Revelation of Peter).
To read what the church father wrote is fascinating. They explain why they chose some and not others or why they thought some of the ones that were chosen shouldn't be in.
For example, one of the early church fathers Eusebius:
http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Bible/ ... sts.html#2
The Canon Of Eusebius Of Caesarea (A.D. 265 - 340)
From Eusebius' Ecclesiastical History, III. xxv. 1-7.
At this point it seems appropriate to summarize the writings of the New Testament which have already been mentioned. In the first place must be put the holy quaternion of the Gospels, which are followed by the book of the Acts of the Apostles. (1) After this must be reckoned the Epistles of Paul; next in order the extant former Epistle of John, and likewise the Epistle of Peter must be recognized. After these must be put, if it really seems right, the Apocalypse of John, concerning which we shall give the different opinions at the proper time. (3) These, then, [are to be placed] among the recognized books. Of the disputed books, which are nevertheless familiar to the majority, there are extant the Epistle of James, as it is called; and that of Jude; and the second Epistle of Peter; and those that are called the Second and Third of John, whether they belong to the evangelist or to another person of the same name.
(4) Among the spurious books must be reckoned also the Acts of Paul, and the Shepherd, as it is called, and the Apocalypse of Peter; and, in addition to these, the extant Epistle of Barnabas, and the Teachings of the Apostles, as it is called. And, in addition, as I said, the Apocalypse of John, if it seem right. (This last, as I said, is rejected by some, but others count it among the recognized books.) (5) And among these some have counted also the Gospel of the Hebrews, with which those of the Hebrews who have accepted Christ take a special pleasure.
(6) Now all these would be among the disputed books; but nevertheless we have felt compelled to make this catalogue of them, distinguishing between those writings which, according to the tradition of the Church, are true and genuine and recognized, from the others which differ from them in that they are not canonical [lit., entestamented], but disputed, yet nevertheless are known to most churchmen. [And this we have done] in order that we might be able to know both these same writings and also those which the heretics put forward under the name of the apostles; including, for instance, such books as the Gospels of Peter, of Thomas, of Matthias, or even of some others besides these, and the Acts of Andrew and John and the other apostles. To none of these has any who belonged to the succession of ecclesiastical writers ever thought it right to refer in his writings. (7) Moreover, the character of the style also is far removed from apostolic usage, and the thought and purport of their contents are completely out of harmony with true orthodoxy and clearly show themselves that they are the forgeries of heretics. For this reason they ought not even to be reckoned among the spurious books, but are to be cast aside as altogether absurd and impious.
He points out also that he knows that some of the works attributed to Paul are actually written by someone else.
These are things you would never learn in church, and most people wouldn't ask, or even know to ask.
For example, who ever asked "Who wrote the Gospel according to Matthew"? Everyone just assumes its Matthew! But its not.
Who wrote the Gospel According to James (Jesus' brother)? James? Maybe! But who knows?
