Board index ‹ Christianity

[Auto Teacher]

> There is every indication the copies were made of the original before it was destroyed.

No, there is not. The NT began to get written down by anonymous authors collecting their oral tradition several decades after the events they record. Behold P52, the oldest scrap of a NT manuscript, dates to ~135 C.E.

Measuring only 8.9 by 6 centimeters at its widest points (3.5 by 2.5 inches), it's a fragment of the book of John.

That's what you have to grasp: a tiny fragment, written a century after the events described. That's as close as you have to an original manuscript.

What difference does it make whether you have a million copies of what came after?

btw, if Christians acted like Jews, this would be the most venerated object in the world. Instead, because Christians have a fairy tale understanding of their own scripture, it rests almost unknown in an obscure English library most Christians have never heard of.

[jimwalton]

The dating of the gospels is all based on interpretations of internal evidence, and material evidence (P52) is not the only criteria by which we date the gospels. The oldest extant manuscript of Mark is from about 250, and the oldest fragment in existence is from 100-150. But it's well established that the gospel was written in the first century. For instance, Papias, in AD 125, affirms the authorship of Mark and Matthew, so they were in existence by that time. Papias wrote that Mark was the interpreter of Peter and wrote down what he taught. Historians contend that Peter was in Rome between 55-60, which puts the first draft of Mark in the late 50s. In addition, some Marcan material seems to stem from the controversy over the status of Gentiles, clearly also an issue of Paul's writings in the 50s, and a completely dead issue after the destruction of Jerusalem in 70. most scholars put its writing between 64-70, but there are reasons to go earlier.

Acts doesn't mention the fall of Jerusalem (70), Nero's persecutions (mid-60s), the martyrdoms of James (61), Paul (64? if at all), or Peter (65), the Jewish war against Rome (66 and on). In addition, many of the expressions in Acts are early and primitive. Acts deals with issues that are especially important prior to Jerusalem's fall in 70. So Acts is possibly written between 62-64. It's the second volume of Luke's work, which puts the gospel in the early 60s as well. Since Luke drew some of his information from Mark, that possibly puts Mark in the 50s, within 20-25 years of Jesus.

I'm curious what evidence you have for what you are saying.