Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site cbscc.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!cbsck!cbscc!pmd
From: pmd@cbscc.UUCP (Paul Dubuc)
Newsgroups: net.religion
Subject: Re: Deception by misrepresenting fragments of NT as manuscripts
Message-ID: <4416@cbscc.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 19-Dec-84 09:07:17 EST
Article-I.D.: cbscc.4416
Posted: Wed Dec 19 09:07:17 1984
Date-Received: Thu, 20-Dec-84 04:08:18 EST
References: <1835@ucf-cs.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories , Columbus
Lines: 63


From Yiri BenDavid in response to Karl Kleinpaste:

>From Karl:
>Also, someone else  pointed  out  the  existence  of  a  huge  number of New
>Testament manuscripts, some dating from before 150AD, to which you responded
>by saying that any scholar who  knows his  way in out of the rain knows that
>no manuscripts in existence are that old. I emphatically disagree here. From
>McDowell's *Evidence That Demands  A  Verdict*  (my  copy is old enough that
>it's  before  there  was  vol  1 and vol 2), I  note  the  citation  that  a
>manuscript  known  as  Bodmer  Papyrus  II,  archaeologically  dated  around
>150-200AD,  is in the Bodmer Library of World Literature, and contains  most
>of John. McDowell  in  turn  cites  Bruce Metzger  in  *The  Text of the New
>Testament* in support of this. Further, there is the Chester Beatty  Papyri,
>dated approx  200AD.  Numerous  other  manuscripts  are  described  in  this
>book.

>***********************
>Yiri responds:
>And I reiterate... any scholar who knows his way out of the rains knows
>the difference between a manuscript of the 'New Testament' and a papyrus
>fragment of a few verses... Furthermore, it is despicable to be so
>deceptive as to try to give the impression that the 'New Testament' is
>supported from 150 CE when, in fact, there are only a few fragments of a
>few verses here and there. The earliest mss. is the codex Sinaiticus
>(some argue the vaticanus from roughly the same period.. but the
>Sinaiticus in my view is more closely linked to Palestine origins while
>the vaticanus is more closely linked to Egyptian origins) dating from
>circa 450 CE.  The papyrus to which you refer is P66 and dates from
>circa 200 CE, not 150. What it actually covers is John 1:1 - 6:1; 6:35 -
>14:26,29-30; 15:2-26; 16:2-4,6-7,10-20,22-23; 20:25 - 21:9. This is
>hardly the 'New Testament'!!! Get your facts straight and quit being
>deceptive and misrepresenting things.
>***********************

The Bodmer Papyri (P66,P72,P75) contain most of the Gospels of John
and Luke along with the books of Jude, I Peter, and II Peter.  Dated
A.D. 200, they contain the earliest complete copies of N.T. books.

Codex Vaticanus (B) is a vellum mss. containing the whole N.T. as well
as the LXX O.T.  It is dated A.D. 325-350.

Codex Sinaiticus (Aleph), also vellum contains the whole N.T. and half
the O.T.  Dated A.D. 340.

Codex Ephraemi Rescriptus (C) A.D. 350, contains most of the N.T., only
part of the O.T.  This mss. was written over but retrieved by chemical
activation.

The Codex Alexandrinus (A) dates from A.D. 450.  It is a complete vellum
mss. of the Bible with only minor mutilations.

My source notes that though the above vellum mss. date from the 4th
and 5th centuries, they represent in whole or in part an "Alexandrian"
(mode Alexandria, Egypt) type text that dates from A.D. 100-150.

This source is "A General Introduction to the Bible" by Geisler and Nix.
I'm sure it will be repudiated by Yiri who seems to think he knows
better than Christian scholars who disagree with his views,  by I find
less reason than Yiri to believe they are wrong and Yiri is right.
-- 

Paul Dubuc	cbscc!pmd