first-century fragment

[mightymen]

"Earliest Manuscript of the New Testament Discovered?

These fragments now increase our holdings as follows: we have as many as eighteen New Testament manuscripts from the second century and one from the first. Altogether, more than 43% of all New Testament verses are found in these manuscripts. But the most interesting thing is the first-century fragment.

It was dated by one of the world’s leading paleographers. He said he was ‘certain’ that it was from the first century. If this is true, it would be the oldest fragment of the New Testament known to exist. Up until now, no one has discovered any first-century manuscripts of the New Testament. The oldest manuscript of the New Testament has been P52, a small fragment from John’s Gospel, dated to the first half of the second century. It was discovered in 1934" Dr. Wallace: Earliest Manuscript of the New Testament Discovered? - Daniel B. Wallace

View fragments of the manuscripts of the New Testament here ->
Manuscripts - CSNTM

Schøyen Collection | Home

 

[Fisheeboy]

That's pretty cool! If indeed that is an authentic manuscript of the New Testament and is just now being discovered that is very impressive. God has His reasons and a timing for everything.
Thanks for sharing this MM.

 

[mightymen]

That's pretty cool! If indeed that is an authentic manuscript of the New Testament and is just now being discovered that is very impressive. God has His reasons and a timing for everything.
Thanks for sharing this MM.

I think it was discovered in 2012 but test had to made it's still not fully published because more work is need, the guy who found it can't even talk about because of legal issues. But that's a great find and as you said God has His reasons.

Did you listen to the audio interview, all the manuscripts together comparing them against New Testament they only found about 1000 difference that's out of over 250,000 Words they explain it in my detail but yeah the Scripture is for real.

I thought I gave this link to the audio, you might like to listen it's very long The Textual Reliability of the New Testament 04/19 by Grok Radio | Religion Podcasts

 

[Fisheeboy]

Thank you for the link and letting me know it's lengthy. I do want to listen to it and I plan to. But I gots to rest my sleepee Fishee head first. Have a good night brother and may the Lord continue to bless you.

 

[mightymen]

That's pretty cool!

If you think that's cool read this. Look what I bolded.

"Using textual criticism, how much of the NT can we recover and designate as authentic?

The popular idea is that textual criticism has been able to recover the NT text with 99% accuracy. That's a total of three pages in your average Bible without study notes being in question. Textual critics Westcott and Hort asserted [Hunt.IntNT, 13] that the parts of the NT "still subject to doubt can hardly amount to more than a thousandth part" of the NT - which would be less than a third of a page.

Generally, however, it seems that very few scholars in this field are willing to be so bold. Most scholars in this field seem to settle for vague phrases, ranging from speaking of the "retreating mirage" of the original text to Comfort's assurance that "there are several manuscripts that are quite accurate copies of the original text."[Comf.TNT, 29] Scholars outside the field are more bold; France asserts that "among the textual variants in the gospels there are only two which throw doubt on more than a verse or two of the traditional text" - the ending of Mark and the adultery story in John [Franc.EvJ, 135-6], with the other variants bearing only on details of sentimental value."

Textual Reliability of the New Testament

 

[blondeambition3]

If you think that's cool read this. Look what I bolded.

"Using textual criticism, how much of the NT can we recover and designate as authentic?

The popular idea is that textual criticism has been able to recover the NT text with 99% accuracy. That's a total of three pages in your average Bible without study notes being in question. Textual critics Westcott and Hort asserted [Hunt.IntNT, 13] that the parts of the NT "still subject to doubt can hardly amount to more than a thousandth part" of the NT - which would be less than a third of a page.

Generally, however, it seems that very few scholars in this field are willing to be so bold. Most scholars in this field seem to settle for vague phrases, ranging from speaking of the "retreating mirage" of the original text to Comfort's assurance that "there are several manuscripts that are quite accurate copies of the original text."[Comf.TNT, 29] Scholars outside the field are more bold; France asserts that "among the textual variants in the gospels there are only two which throw doubt on more than a verse or two of the traditional text" - the ending of Mark and the adultery story in John [Franc.EvJ, 135-6], with the other variants bearing only on details of sentimental value."

Textual Reliability of the New Testament

Thank you so much for sharing this mightymen!

How very exciting and I look forward to digging my heels into this one.

 

[mightymen]

Thank you so much for sharing this mightymen!

How very exciting and I look forward to digging my heels into this one.

I'm not surprised that, the manuscript of the New Testament are all over the world in different place and have been translated into different languages and all are 99.99% correct (the same) though one has to be amazed how God works and what we have in the form the New Testament Bible is 99.99% proven correct scientific speaking that is accepted as being 100% correct. Not that's it's needed but if they find earlier manuscript of the New Testament that would make it just that much more awesome.

Finding a first-century fragment could be used as a witnessing tool possible.

If you come across any new links or information on this topic, PLEASE DO POST THEM for all of us.