/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

>What's up /christan

>Usually I'm on pol.

Don't lie. Usually you are on reddit.

>>603490

>They say 66 is the oldest and nearly complete

And that is the answer.

>I also want it to be

That is called "moving the goalposts".

>>603493

>That is called "moving the goalposts".

No stop. It's completely reasonable to assume a discovery in 1952 could be a result of weaponized propaganda stemming from world war era politics.

I am not using P66 as one my primary sources. What's the next best?

>>603490

I'm not sure you're looking at this the right way - the fragments count. They would have been copied by scribes, and sometimes we only have fragments left. By and large the fragments that we have testify to a pretty consistent record, a lot of the more controversial stuff (Johannine comma, pericope adulterae) came in way after Constantine. What question are you trying to answer?

>>603501

No, it is not reasonable to assume a discovery in 1952 as being propaganda. You are literally, right now, using a machine whose inner-workings are primarily post-WW2 discovery and innovation. You wanted the oldest, you got it. P66.

If you don't believe it to be the oldest or believe it to be a fraud, then you need to prove it. P66 has a LOT of study and scientific backing behind it being the oldest yet discovered. I know that being from /pol/ precludes the possibility of you actually believing in science, but that's what you're going to have to accept when it comes to dating a document.

>>603509

>your board owner

Tutor sucks literal dick?

The oldest complete manuscript is the received text version preserved by God as used by the churches throughout most of history.

t. textual conservative

>>603515

>The oldest complete manuscript is the received text version

Which manuscript is "the received text version" ? Where is it located?

>>603505

I'm going to get more into fragments later. You're right about them. But for now I just want to have a nearly complete single version to refer to as my starting point. But I want something that has been around a long time.

>>603493

>>603505

>>603506

Why is this so difficult to understand? P66 is fine, but I'm just looking for something else. Stop forcing P66 on me.

>>603523

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Textus_Receptus

The received text was a critical edition from 1512. Can't we do any older than that?

>>603509

Let me remind you that bearing false witness is a sin, anon.

>>603542

>>603543

I was obviously talking about the leftytranny

>>603523

>I'm just looking for something else

No.

>>603490

>what is the oldest complete manuscripts of the Gospel of John

That's what you wanted. You have your answer. P66.

>>603546

>>603543

>>603542

>>603513

>>603509

Can we please stay on topic? I really am trying to figure this out….

>>603547

P66 was DISCOVERED in 1952… even though it was dated as the earliest, I want there to be a historical record of the manuscripts existence since ancient times.

At this point, I'll take fragments if you don't know anything nearly complete. What's the oldest fragment that wasn't just recently dug up 50 years ago?

>>603550

So, if an archaeologist found the absolute original signed copy of John's gospel today and its authenticity proven beyond any shadow of a doubt and Jesus Himself came back and said, "Yep, this is the original.", it wouldn't be acceptable to you because "muh current year"? Wow, you really are from /pol/.

>anti-Judaism

>unchristian

>>603558

>>603559

Guys, I think we should be more charitable towards OP.

Sorry about some of the trolls, OP.

>>603550

>I want there to be a historical record of the manuscripts existence since ancient times.

The document is its own record. There are many ways of verifying a documents age like; studying the materials it is made of, radiometric dating, study of the handwriting and morphology of the lettering, identifying the age of items it was burred with etc…

You don't need a certificate of creation signed by the Apostolic Fathers to know with confidence how old it is.

>>603561

YOU HAVE TO GO BACK!

>>>/reddit/

>>603561

I'm not trolling.

>What is oldest manuscript of John?

<P66

>No, not THAT one!

<But that is the oldest manuscript of John

>Yeah, but it wasn't discovered until last thursday

<You asked for the oldest

>NO I DIDN'T

It's like talking to a child.

ALRIGHT. SO I GUESS NOBODY KNOWS. Here's what I've discovered.

>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codex_Vaticanus

>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Textus_Receptus

Vaticanus was discovered randomly in the vatican one day in 1516; and dates from the year 300.

Textus Receptus was a critical collation that coincidentally was first printed also in 1516.

But I'm certain there must be SOME copies left over of the greek bible that were discovered or collated before 1000.

Really, I thought this was going to be an easy quick answer… I didn't realize I was stepping into catholic vs orthodox political rivalry territory.

>>603619

thanks. but the only helpful image there is the first one, but it only talks about the source of the copies… but we're looking at actual manuscripts and their discovery dates.

Alright I'm going to have to do this the old fashioned way and discover this together. Search, and whoever finds the oldest discovered wins.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codex_Bezae#History

>The manuscript is believed to have been repaired at Lyon in the ninth century, as revealed by a distinctive ink used for supplementary pages. It was closely guarded for many centuries in the monastic library of St Irenaeus at Lyon.

I just found Codex Bezae: there are records that people were familiar with it around the 10th century. It has gospel of john in greek as well as the other 3 gospels. Currently its in London.

Any others?

ANSWERS SO FAR SUMMARY:

Codex Bezae: Discovered around 1000. Created in 400. Best find so far.

Vaticanus was created in 300, but discovered in 1516. this isn't old enough for me

Sinaiticus was created in 330, but discovered in 1844… definitely not old enough.

Textus Receptus was critical collation created in 1516 by Erasmus. That's great but I'm interested in seeing his raw sources; not his expert opinion on the best combination of sources.

Any others?

>>603636

>this isn't old enough for me

Do you believe the dating or not?

>>603651

>Do you believe the dating or not?

I don't know. I mean, I would definitely look at vaticanus as one of my comparitive manuscripts. But I want to compare it to something that has been out in the open for a longer time.

>>603626

He's obviously referring to their excesses in that area. And if you don't think they have excesses you need to examine your soul.

>>603654

The thing is, the known manuscripts which did get used all the time fell to pieces centuries ago exactly because they were well known sources; copyists used them extensively, and little by little they fell apart until they were deemed unservable. The best preserved manuscripts are the ones lost in ancient times and recently rediscovered, or show pieces which were never intended for actual use.

>>603659

>the known manuscripts which did get used all the time fell to pieces centuries ago

yes that's why they're so valuable. For instance, the oldest Latin Vulgate is codex amiatinus, something like from year 1000.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codex_Amiatinus

Why isn't there something like this for the Greek manuscripts which were supposedly more common? The best we have is vaticanus in 1516, or bezae in 1000.

Maybe is Bezae it? That's the oldest?

>>603490

the originals? good luck man. Everything has been copied since forever. I'm sorry I can't help you with it.

>>603671

no not the originals. just current reigning champion for oldest existent copy of one of those copies you were talkin about, you know?

>>603673

Papyrus P52. There are others but still uncorroborated

>>603685

>Papyrus P52

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rylands_Library_Papyrus_P52

>The fragment of papyrus was among a group acquired on the Egyptian market in 1920 by Bernard Grenfell.

Sorry, 1920 discovery. Not old enough. Re-read the top of the thread. >>603616

>>603490

Please go to reddit where you belong.

>>603693

So you are afraid this could be a forgery?

I'm sorry lad but you are talking with yourself right now.

>>603667

>yes that's why they're so valuable

To us, now. Back then, they were probably burned at the endof their useful lives to prevent randoms from desecrating them, seeing as they were unservable.

>>603698

>So you are afraid this could be a forgery?

>>603569

>Alright, let's just say that I'm interested in the history of what manuscripts were available for scholars at different stages in history.For instance, I found a latin codex vercellensis that has a record of being passed around to a few different churches, and its pages are all messed up because throughout the middle ages people took oaths on that manuscript. It helps paint me a picture of the state of bible scholarship in those old centuries.It would be really helpful if you guys could let this p66 thing go. I'm not here to debate the glory of p66.

>>603490

Gospel of John is literally Christian anti-Judaism. Harold Bloom says the Gospel of John is more anti-semitic and has done more harm to Jews throughout history than has The Merchant of Venice by Shakespeare, which he admits is also anti-semitic, but less so.

>>603490

>>603557

>>603705

>/christian.

>pol

>unchristian anti-judaism

>What's the oldest one

>No not that one, because it invalidates my argument

Why are you even here? It seems as though you're arguing from a conclusion instead of satisfying a curiosity. If you don't even have faith in the method in which the word was compiled and preserved, from where does your faith even come from? Why even bother trying to fit in? If you're just going to ignore evidence because of arbitrary a priori rules you're making up on the spot, then why not just >>>/reddit/ ?

>>603788

>Why are you even here? It seems as though you're arguing from a conclusion instead of satisfying a curiosity. If you don't even have faith in the method in which the word was compiled and preserved, from where does your faith even come from? Why even bother trying to fit in? If you're just going to ignore evidence because of arbitrary a priori rules you're making up on the spot, then why not just >>>/reddit/ ?

checked 88

Anyway, I wasn't trying to offend anybody, just collect information; we all can believe whatever we want. Personally, I want to compare the oldest discovered to the ones recently discovered and analyze the differences to better my understanding of what the original was.

But on a less mature note, who the heck is going to trust something that came out in 1952. HILARIOUS. I'm sure through the centuries there were bunches of fakes that got discredited after 100 years and we have no memory of them today. Surely give P66 another 50 years as the politcal climate changes, it might turn out to be a fake, with paid off scientists to do your precious science that you trust soooo much.

Acting as if there isn't enemies of christianity that would love to shove a fake in there somewhere.

>>603788

The sands of time are the best filter for fakes.