The Bible Fossil Record

[daedalus 2.0]

The oldest complete manuscript of the Bible was written around the 4th century and is known as the Sinaiticus Bible, the Vaticanus is next oldest. Where did they get the material to write these Bibles you ask?

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.

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.

Here is a picture of it:



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?

[Cathar1950]

It seems to be more productive if your looking for some understanding of the evolution of the proto-orthodox church to look at the writing in the order of their writing. Robert Eisenman make a good case for Paul being a Herodian rather then Jewish which is a better fit then the account in Acts with the authentic letters of Paul. As SGF Brandon points out, Paul's letters are rather confusing as they seem to have been gathered later after the fall of Jerusalem and Paul's rehabilitation among the growing Gentile Christian and the near disappearance of Jewish Christianity. Letters are missing and some seem to be out of place where parts of letters were added to other letters and some even were seeming slopped together from fragments.

[Goat]

Thanks for clarifying that this thread is mainly about the NT.

It ought to be remembered that the Bible is not one book, but two; and in point of fact, many. The Jewish Scriptures reached their final form at least 500 years before any of the NT documents were written, let alone assembled into the present canon, and quite possibly much earlier.

I will disagree with the dateline of the Jewish Scriptures. I would say that the Torah and the prophets reached their final form about 400 years before the NT, with a number of the 'writings' added later.

The Torah was put together as Scripture about 400 bc., the Prophets about 200 bce.
and the Writings about 100 c.e.

[cnorman18]

Thanks for clarifying that this thread is mainly about the NT.

It ought to be remembered that the Bible is not one book, but two; and in point of fact, many. The Jewish Scriptures reached their final form at least 500 years before any of the NT documents were written, let alone assembled into the present canon, and quite possibly much earlier.

I will disagree with the dateline of the Jewish Scriptures. I would say that the Torah and the prophets reached their final form about 400 years before the NT, with a number of the 'writings' added later.

The Torah was put together as Scripture about 400 bc., the Prophets about 200 bce.
and the Writings about 100 c.e.

I'd be surprised if the final canon was determined that late, but I'll take your word for it and stand corrected. Do you have a link?

I blush to admit that I know more about the history of the NT canon from my seminary studies than about my own. My readings in Judaism have been more about theology and history than about the assembly of the canon beyond the Torah, but I assure you that that will soon be remedied.

[Goat]

Thanks for clarifying that this thread is mainly about the NT.

It ought to be remembered that the Bible is not one book, but two; and in point of fact, many. The Jewish Scriptures reached their final form at least 500 years before any of the NT documents were written, let alone assembled into the present canon, and quite possibly much earlier.

I will disagree with the dateline of the Jewish Scriptures. I would say that the Torah and the prophets reached their final form about 400 years before the NT, with a number of the 'writings' added later.

The Torah was put together as Scripture about 400 bc., the Prophets about 200 bce.
and the Writings about 100 c.e.

I'd be surprised if the final canon was determined that late, but I'll take your word for it and stand corrected. Do you have a link?

I blush to admit that I know more about the history of the NT canon from my seminary studies than about my own. My readings in Judaism have been more about theology and history than about the assembly of the canon beyond the Torah, but I assure you that that will soon be remedied.

Well, wiki isn't always the best source, but it is reasonably accurate

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_c ... wish_canon

I don't think several of the books were even written until the 3rd or second century bce. I think Ruth, Daniel and a few other of the writings were later.

[daedalus 2.0]

cnorm, thanks for your post, I find much that we agree on, or rather, I agree with what you are saying and it's nice to know I'm not completely off, having not had the extensive education in it as you have.

I think your account of Jesus is spot on, according to the vast majority of unbiased scholars.

I do, however, question your account of John and whether he wrote it - but I need to do more research. (We can exclude Rev's for now). That would, of course, allow me to retract the "nutter" comment!

A question: when Paul speaks of Resurrection, do you think he is talking about it spiritually or physically? I understand that there are references to resurrection as if one is putting on a new set of clothes; which can be interpreted as a new "skin" (physical), or that you shed your physical body for a spiritual one?

It seems this idea is hard to pin down, and may just be a difference in interpretation without much distinction.

It would be interesting to know when the concept of physical resurrection started (though, I understand that other myths had Resurrection themes).

Also, I'm not sure if I agree with the Matt priority (coming from someone who is a novice), but would this change any of the possible timelines for the claims of prophesy?


Oh, also, perhaps you can tell us how Midrash is helpful in reading the Bible and how without it, the Bible loses some of its meaning (if you can be so bold to assume what the writer might have meant)?

Anyhow, great posts.

[daedalus 2.0]

One quick note: The story of Jesus writing in the dirt. I thought that was added by scribes many years later.

I agree that writing in the dirt is a nice little detail, but does it suggest that it was Jesus? (I just finished Erhman's book)

1. Could it have been a meaningful gesture at the time, a metaphor for something else? There are always so many plays on the idea of "Jesus is the word", or "the Word made flesh", etc. that it seems "The Flesh making words" may have some weight (NOT that my little twist is the way it is! Just the best example I can suggest right now). Or, that it was a sign that he was cataloguing the sins of the preists for them to see. etc. Anyhow, you get my meaning: that the gesture has lost its meaning, but once meant something important to the story.
2. It still seems it could have been a story written about someone else, with all that detail, but simply later attributed to Jesus by a careless scribe. Once it got copied that way once, it had a good chance of staying that way.

The reason I challenge this is only because the early manuscripts don't have the story, but a later one does: with it written in and a note by the Master scribe telling the scribe to "leave it as is you fool!" (I may have that backward!)

[cnorman18]

cnorm, thanks for your post, I find much that we agree on, or rather, I agree with what you are saying and it's nice to know I'm not completely off, having not had the extensive education in it as you have.

Thanks for the kind words, but my NT chops are probably 30 years out of date. I haven't kept up much since my seminary days.

I think your account of Jesus is spot on, according to the vast majority of unbiased scholars.

Wouldn't know about that; it just has that kind of feel to me. Something happened to those people, and even though I no longer believe the Resurrection happened as advertised, I still don't think it was a straight-up scam.

If one of the disciples had been named "L. Ron," I might consider it.

I do, however, question your account of John and whether he wrote it - but I need to do more research. (We can exclude Rev's for now). That would, of course, allow me to retract the "nutter" comment!

Hey, I didn't say I thought he wrote the Gospel. Just that the Church Fathers did. I don't recall that there were ever any compelling arguments against it, except that he must have been in his late 80s or 90s when he wrote it. Not impossible, but not very likely either.

No choice on giving up Revelation. Whoever wrote that could barely write Greek at all, whereas the Gospel is fairly literate, if weird.

A question: when Paul speaks of Resurrection, do you think he is talking about it spiritually or physically? I understand that there are references to resurrection as if one is putting on a new set of clothes; which can be interpreted as a new "skin" (physical), or that you shed your physical body for a spiritual one?

To be honest, I don't think the early Church was ever quite sure. The consensus seems to be that one is given a "spiritual body," but to what extent that overlaps, so to speak, with the physical one is still a matter of debate.

Beats me. I was asked a lot of questions when I was a pastor, but that wasn't one of them.

It seems this idea is hard to pin down, and may just be a difference in interpretation without much distinction.

Or guessing, since only one person has ever been through a resurrection of that type, and the examinations seem to have been a bit cursory.

It would be interesting to know when the concept of physical resurrection started (though, I understand that other myths had Resurrection themes).

The Egyptians were pretty high on it. I'm told there is evidence of Neandertal graves containing food, which implies some sort of belief that the dead would eat it. Probably goes as far back as noticing that people sometimes fell down and didn't get up, and wishing that they would.

Also, I'm not sure if I agree with the Matt priority (coming from someone who is a novice), but would this change any of the possible timelines for the claims of prophesy?

Nah. The content would remain the same; the argument is only over who got written down first. I think Farmer's "two-gospel hypothesis" has a lot to recommend it; it simplifies things hugely, since one no longer needs to assume "Q,"

Watch out for "prophecy." Most of what passes for "prophecy" among today's fundamentalists and evangelicals is a matter of reading meaning into passages that were never taken as "prophecy" at any time before the 19th and sometimes the 20th centuries. The whole "Dispensation" thing is pretty new, too; people think the Rapture and the Tribulation and all that is plainly spelled out in the Bible, but it just isn't. A verse here and a phrase there are yanked out of context to "prove" things that just aren't in the text, even by implication.

Oh, also, perhaps you can tell us how Midrash is helpful in reading the Bible and how without it, the Bible loses some of its meaning (if you can be so bold to assume what the writer might have meant)?

Midrash is actually a way of making up speculative stories to explore what might be beneath or beyond the Biblical text.

There is a story that Moses went to great lengths to find and recover a lost lamb, for instance, when he was herding sheep for his father-in-law Jethro, and it is said that it was his gentleness, humility and perseverance in that task that inspired God to choose him as the Deliverer. No one takes that story to be literally true; it's just a way of thinking about the meaning of Scripture for a people who don't do abstractions as well as they tell stories. I don't know how much meaning would be lost without midrash, but it's a useful tool and a very old one.

Anyhow, great posts.

Thanks again.

[prof_tutut]

Bible was corrupted, that why God sent down HIS words in Al-Quran. Al-Quran is for Mankind, it's not only for Muslim. Make yourself Free to study the Al-Quran if you are really interested to know about our God.

[cnorman18]

Bible was corrupted, that why God sent down HIS words in Al-Quran. Al-Quran is for Mankind, it's not only for Muslim. Make yourself Free to study the Al-Quran if you are really interested to know about our God.

Gosh, thanks heaps.

I think I'll stay with my "corrupted" Bible. I don't care to study a book, or follow a religion, which advocates the outright murder of my people as the enemies of God.

[bernee51]

Bible was corrupted, that why God sent down HIS words in Al-Quran. Al-Quran is for Mankind, it's not only for Muslim. Make yourself Free to study the Al-Quran if you are really interested to know about our God.

Gosh, thanks heaps.

I think I'll stay with my "corrupted" Bible. I don't care to study a book, or follow a religion, which advocates the outright murder of my people as the enemies of God.

Not just your people - all 'infidels'. As an atheist and 'Allah denier' I stand to chance under Sharia.